Inside the Mind of a Nerd

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Wow, I can't believe I haven't made any posts since last year's SIFF! I had a few posts in mind, but obviously they never came to fruition. I guess planning a wedding in between working a full time job takes its toll. My special someone and I still managed to jam in find time to watch 14 movies this season from the largest film festival in the nation, so I wanted to give my somewhat arbitrary awards. I tried to keep most of the same awards from last year, but I decided to swap one of them out given the makeup of the films we saw. While I think as a while I enjoyed the slate of films we had last year at SIFF better, when I look back at this year I still thought there were some real gems to be enjoyed.

This was a clear winner to me because I think it is the most impressive documentary I've ever seen. I honestly can't think of a documentary I've seen before that I enjoyed more. What really grabbed me about this film was that it felt so honest. It felt less like a documentary and more like real life was scripted and adapted into a movie. There's no forced talking heads or awkward flashbacks to terrible quality footage - the director and producer actually spend multiple weeks living at the Tedorigawa brewery just like the normal set of about a dozen employees do for half the year. This gave them unprecedented access into the lives of these men and into their process. The process of making quality saké isn't exactly a secret, but the laborious manual process is so rarely practiced nowadays (compared to using modern machinery) that this movie gives you a glimpse into something not only steeped in tradition but deeply enriched by Japanese culture. I believe this is Erik Shirai's first feature film, which makes it all the more impressive. If you get the chance to watch this movie please do. Though I personally find saké to be delicious, I really don't think you have to in order to enjoy this documentary.

Best Eye Candy
Winner: Henri Henri

I can't overlook a film that took the high bar set by Amélie and decided that it was going to produce an equally satisfying film that has a completely different plot. While this movie was made in Quebec, there are clear parallels in some of the overall set of characters and style of the movie compared to Amelie, but other than that it really takes a life of its own. The film follows the somewhat naive Henri, an orphan who is being evicted from the convent he grew up in and has to find his footing in the real world with his only marketable skill being that of a rebulber (i.e. changing light bulbs). With that simple premise, a tale of romance, hopefulness, and a bit of magic takes shape. It's as sweet as it is beautiful with strong visual sense that sticks with you after you leave the theater. While it doesn't create quite as rich as a world as Amelie does (in part due to its modest timeline, in my opinion), it does make effective use of the imagery it's trying to convey. While at times I felt the imagery was a little on the nose, I had to put that aside because so much was right about this movie. It's a feel-good movie that you should really want to see.

Runner Up: The Birth of Saké

I've already spoken about this film above, but I did just want to add that the cinematography in this film is ridiculous. I cannot fathom how they got such crisp visuals when only Erik Shirai and his producer were at the brewery making the film. They had a great editor, too, but the raw footage had to be high quality to produce such jaw dropping visuals. So many scenes would look good plastered on the wall of my college apartment's bedroom (heck, there are stills I would frame and put on my wall now).

Most Touching

Winner: Good Ol' Boy

I had a hard time deciding on this one because I had a few movies that I felt could've met this category. I decided to give it to Good Ol' Boy because I loved the breadth of emotions it brought out of me. I think it affected me on a personal level because I somewhat identify with the lead character since I, too, grew up in an immigrant Indian family (although my family isn't Hindu and I wasn't born in India in the 70s). It's not a sad movie necessarily, but I did find it to be very evocative. It's a style of movie that you don't see enough of nowadays - a small town coming of age story. There's plenty of movies targeted at teens/tweens nowadays that capitalize on melodrama culture, but this movie juxtaposes real life problems for children in the 70s along with cultural differences. Even though I wish we could've spent more time with these characters you get quite a bit about them from a pretty concise script and it's just enough to keep you satisfied without overwhelming you with subtext. To top it off, lead actor Roni Akurati
steals the screen as a really endearing Indian boy. I enjoyed this film thoroughly and really hope it gets picked up. Also, SIFF is showing it this Sunday again for any locals who didn't catch it.

Runner Up: I'll See You In My Dreams

Blythe Danner, where have you been all my life? What an amazing leading lady for a really cute film. The humorous situation we found ourselves in for this movie was that at least three fourths of the people in the theater were 50 years old or above. That shouldn't indicate that the movie is only for an older crowd - it's actually not cheesy like a lot of films that pander to this audience are. It's very honest and heartfelt. It follows widower Carol Petersen who has become somewhat numb to life in her twilight years and is trying to make sense of it all. It's never preachy, but it has so many scenes with interesting implications that I really appreciated. What I think I found most surprising is that Blythe works as an actress not just as being very talented but still having this air of being sexy. She's not slutty, she's just very human and very endearing in a really fresh way. Her performance is wonderful and really stuck with me. Sam Elliott is also perfect as the love interest and in real life he seems exactly as his character on the big screen (personality-wise), which I thought was kind of fun to see.

Best Short Film
Winner: The World of Tomorrow

Don Hertzfeld, of Rejected fame, has a really strong offering in this short. It's the story of the future self of a young girl going back in time to reveal the girl's long and quirky future as technology advances. It's funny, sweet, and at times a little eerie, but always provocative and interesting. I can't say too much more about it without giving away important details, but I think of it as if XKCD and sci fi movies got together and had a short film baby. You can actually buy this film for a few bucks online, which I recommend doing. It's a worthwhile way to kill 15 minutes and be totally entranced.

Runner Up: Live Fast Draw Yung

There were so many great shorts this year that picking just one runner up was hard, but I have to give it to this really fun short documentary about Yung Lenox, a 7 year-old with a penchant for doing hand drawn portraits of rappers and their albums. His Instagram account has generated a cult following and his father's love for him really shines through in this documentary. The kid is really cute and fun, and the short had just the right amount of everything.

Best Overall
Winner: Love & Mercy

When I walked out of this movie, I didn't expect that it would be my favorite film of SIFF 2015. As time has progressed though, it has clearly emerged as the film that I've thought about the most. This almost haunting portrayal of the life of Brian Wilson at the peak of his career and probably the lowest point of his life is a very unique experience. I didn't even want to see this movie because I'm so tired of the formulaic big name biopic movies that have been getting churned out every year or two like clockwork. This film has a twist though - Paul Dano portrays Brian Wilson towards the latter part of his time with the Beach Boys (around the time when Pet Sounds was recorded and released) while John Cusack portrays Brian Wilson in the late 1980s when he is under the care of psychologist Eugene Landy (Paul Giamatti) and in a budding relationship with Melinda Ledbetter (Elizabeth Banks). The movie is so bizarre at times that I wouldn't have believed it was true if I didn't see interviews with Wilson that confirm it. In fact, I probably watched at least half an hour of old footage from Beach Boys performances and interviews because the film got under my skin so much. It's pretty surprising how much the faces on screen mimic their real life counterparts.

Paul Dano clearly puts it all out there in his portrayal of Wilson. While Cusack's performance may not have been quite as nuanced, I still found it to be an effective dramatization of Wilson's time under Landy. Paul Giamatti as Landy was also a powerhouse in his performance - truly incredible and at times truly frightening. This movie also has made me look at Elizabeth Banks in a whole new light. I'm used to seeing her in comedies and less heavy material, but this movie shows that she's ready for more serious material like this (this isn't her first drama by any means, it's just a good demonstration of her abilities). You don't have to be a Beach Boys fan to enjoy this movie, you just have to be a lover of music and good storytelling and I doubt you'll be disappointed here.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

It makes me so happy that SIFF exists and that they put so much effort into putting on such a great festival every year. This year was no exception and I think had a particularly awesome promotional video with it. It featured over 140 painstakingly chosen films (and is the longest film festival in the country I believe), and out of that we managed to see 11 feature length films and 3 short film programs. So I thought I'd come up with a few awards of my own (obviously not formal or anything). The films that I'm listing below as winners are literally movies that I still think about today, two weeks after seeing our last film at the festival. They're worthy of your money if you get a chance to see them.

Best Eye Candy
Winner: The Nightingale

We almost didn't even see this one because I just didn't know what it would be like. I was really impressed with it though. It's entirely in Chinese (with a French director at the helm, interestingly enough) and features the incredible backdrop of rural China. It may be the best shot movie you'll see all year. Not only that, but it's a wonderful story. In a nutshell, a little girl spoiled by modern conveniences and has two workaholic parents is babysat by her grandfather. He subsequently takes her on a trip to his home village and the story takes off from there. I won't give away more than that, but I'll just say that it's a really cool journey. It is a bit slow paced at times, but I just loved the characters so much that I decided that I really didn't care that it was moving a little slow. If you've only seen China through CNN or some other form of mass media, this is a must-watch. It makes me really want to plan a vacation to China.

Best Documentary Film

Winner: The Internet's Own Boy

We saw a few documentaries but this one definitely stuck with me the most. It documents the tragically short life of computer visionary Aaron Swartz, co-founder of Reddit and Internet Haktivist who contributed to the movement of blacking out websites to protest SOPA/PIPA. He sadly committed suicide amidst facing prosecution for downloading academic journals illicitly using the MIT network. I love how much the movie focused on his accomplishments though and how little it covered his death. The film maker, Brian Knappenberger, showed great respect for Aaron and his family and I found it to be a really inspiring and moving story overall. If you're worried that you'll be depressed from watching it then don't be - it's really not meant to be a sad film. It is sad at times, but I mostly found it amazing that someone so brilliant existed and left a bevy of lessons behind for the rest of us to learn.

Runner Up: I Am Big Bird

I was really pleasantly surprised by this film. We decided to see it because of the cute trailer but I figured that a movie about the life of some guy would be boring, even if Caroll Spinney is Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch. I was truly surprised at how captivating this movie is. I think what made it really special is all the archival footage that the Spinney family let the directors use. We briefly met Caroll and his wife after the movie and I was so happy that they're the exact people you see in the movie. The directors truly captured the personality of the both of them so well and you'd think that someone who's been Big Bird for so many generations of kids would be crotchety and jaded by now but in fact he was really sweet to all his fans that came out to take photos and get autographs. The movie is definitely a ball of emotion from start to finish eager to take you from tears to laughs within a few minutes (some of the transitions were actually a tad sudden), but if you can stomach a few tears then you're in for a really enjoyable film.

Most Provocative Film

Winner: Dear White People

I was already pretty jazzed for this movie going into it and it did not disappoint. The thing is, I don't know how to describe it really. They have a teaser for it that I don't really recommend watching because I don't think it does a great job telling you what this movie is really like. It's a satire that superbly addresses the issues surrounding modern-day racism (primarily between white and black people) by giving you several different viewpoints from a great cast of characters. It doesn't give any concrete answers and I kind of like that. I walked out of the theater feeling really enlightened and just curious about how many people I've knowingly offended in recent years. I think it's getting a theatrical release in October, which is very well-deserved and frankly a little surprising given that it's a little incendiary in its town. Still, I think it's a film that a lot of Americans really need to watch.

Runner Up: Two Raging Grannies

If you just watch the trailer for this movie you'll understand why it's such a fun movie. It simply chronicles the adventure of two senior citizens trying to get a handle on the complex issue of economic sustainability. It ends up being a double whammy because on one hand you actually do learn quite a bit about popular advice on economics and what the pitfalls of those common conceptions are, and on the other hand you get to watcht he two cutest old ladies you ever seen live their lives. I absolutely adore the fact that despite being so old and having mobility and medical issues that they're so brave and driven. I hope when I'm they're age that I still have that kind of fire in me, and it really made me want to go out and pick up some of their suggested reading material.

Best Overall Film

Winner: Boyhood

I already wrote a pretty in-depth review here about Boyhoodso I won't re-hash that. I will say that it won the audience choice award (the Golden Space Needle) for best director for Richard Linklater and best actress for Patricia Arquette. I'm pretty sure it'll come out in theaters, possibly even wide release, so just make sure that you catch it when it does because I really doubt you'll be sorry. For all its imperfections, it's so unique that you'll find it hard to look away.

Runner Up: Life Feels Good

This was another popular movie at the festival that earned Dawid Ogrodnik best actor. This is a really powerful movie. At times, it can definitely be hard to watch and it's a little long. Still, I love how raw it is. It doesn't sugar coat anything and I don't feel like it exaggerates anything. I feel like it's really telling the story of this boy who's coping with Cerebral Palsy and being treated like he's unintelligent even though he's quite smart, sweet, and funny. It's so important for us to treat people with disabilities like people and understand that they can be an asset to society though most people wouldn't think so at first look. I digress though - it's astounding that Dawid doesn't actually have Cerebral Palsy. Astounding. This movie is worth watching just to see how amazing an actor he is - the amazing story is a bonus.

Best Short Film

Winner:Democracia
Every year SIFF does a short film program dedicated to Spanish films and after seeing it last year we had to check out again this year. Sure enough, they were all very entertaining. This one was the most memorable to me though. It's the story of the boss of a small company who feels that things have been going too well among employees and somehow has to die so that there can be a funeral for the employees to commiserate at and bond with one another. It's such a crazy concept that you can't help but be drawn in by this dark comedy. If you somehow find a way to watch it, you'll be happy for it.

Runner Up: The Missing Scarf
It makes me so happy that this short film exists. It's quirky, clever, and wonderfully animated. You can get an idea of its style in the teaser trailer. It's follows a squirrel looking for his missing scarf that ends up sharing a series of life lessons that end in an interesting twist. It's narrated by the grand master of Seattle's Pride Parade this year, George Takei. I definitely don't think it would be as entertaining without his spot-on narration. Again, if you can see it, please do. You'll thank me for it.

And that's it! I'm so glad to live in a city that loves cinema enough to support an organization that puts together such a great event every year and can even maintain a few theaters year round. If you appreciate classic movie theaters, please consider helping SIFF re-open the Egyptian this fall.

Friday, June 06, 2014

I know it's been over a year since my last post, but I was feeling inspired to write up a review of Boyhood since we managed to catch it on Sunday at SIFF and it's not widely released yet but it's one of the only movies I'll have seen during the Festival that will be available nationwide. We still have three more movies to see before SIFF 2014 is in the books, and maybe I'll follow that up with short reviews of my favorites (we'll have seen 14 of the 140+ films).

The trailer for Boyhood has a couple of spoilers, but I'll share it in the hopes that it will encourage more people to check out this movie:

Richard Linklater (of the "Before Sunrise/Sunset/Midnight" series fame) set out 12 years ago on a daring film project: to create a film that follows the boyhood of a fictional character from age 6 to 18 as he deals with growing up in a family after his biological parents divorce. The catch is that this character is played by the same actor without any special effects trickery - all versions of the boy are portrayed by Ellar Coltrane. It's really less of a movie though than a cinematic experiment. While I do think it has its share of problems in the end, I feel that they're outweighed by the wholly unique experience of watching this movie and partially just inherent in the overall story. This is in stark contrast to another cinematic experiment that hasn't gotten quite as much attention stateside, the Aussie film The Turning based on the book of short stories of the same name that I think almost completely failed to make a cohesive movie out of over a dozen short stories directed by different people.

Boyhood doesn't follow your typical movie formula. It plays more like a series of vignettes that are trying to explain the formative moments of this boy's life. They are held together by involving the same central characters and overall style (after all, the same director made all of them). They actually dovetail quite well with one another. I thought it would be super obvious from a technological point of view in picture quality that the film was made over 12 years, but it really isn't - you just see the main character (Mason Jr.) and his sister (portrayed by Linklater's real-life daughter, Lorelei) age during the course of the film. It flows surprisingly well. The catch is that it's almost like you're looking through a peephole into this kid's life at very specific times. In fact, it's hard for me to think of a scene without the main character in it. Because it has to span so much time, I feel like there are plotlines that aren't fully explored that I would've loved to have seen more of, except that the movie is already far too long at a whopping 164 minutes.

I'm digressing a bit though. The point I'd like to get across first and foremost is that this is a really evocative film for probably any guy and probably some women, as well. I feel like girls have a distinctively different set of formative experiences from guys (a Girlhood sequel would be kind of cool), but what's deeply fascinating to me is that I can personally relate to so much of what happens in this movie even though my upbringing was so different from Mason Jr.'s. There's some pop culture nostalgia that comes up, but aside from that there's the nostalgia of things like getting bullied or sibling rivalries or lots of other things I don't want to spoil. It really is something special, in my opinion, and something that has stuck with me ever since I've walked out of the theater almost a week ago.

If I had to pick one thing in this movie that I wish would've been fixed it would be the relationship between Mason Jr. and his mother (portrayed by the amazing Patricia Arquette). She's very talented in her role and I feel like I don't always understand their relationship and that Mason Jr. doesn't always make sense because of this. It's really hard to explain what I mean without spoilers. I wish that Linklater could've cut some other stuff out of the film to make just a little more room for some of that exposition. The focus is so heavy on the boy that so many of the other characters in the film become throwaway and we don't get to get very deep into his sister, even. You have to kind of just accept that and enjoy the ride that this story is, but it still is something that bothered me even though I recognize it as a tough thing to fix.

My other issues with the movie are relatively minor. The movie ended with terrible dialogue. Terrible dialogue. I think it was purposely cheesy, but why end a film with cheesy dialogue? There was cheesy dialogue at other times in the film, but I feel like it was forgivable because kids are cheesy by nature when they're growing up. I'm conflicted on how I feel about Ellar Coltrane as an actor. It's tough because his supporting cast is so amazing and he's a newcomer to acting, but it was hard to tell at times if he was following direction on the character or phoning it in - it could've gone either way. His performance was good enough, but I don't think he elevated the film like he could've.

All-in-all, I would call this a must-see movie. If I had to rate it, I'd probably give it an A-. Yes, it's really long. Yes, it can feel like a dizzying array of content. If you can look past its flaws though, I hope you'll agree that Linklater has a real gem on his hands and I really hope that he gets a wide release for this. It's a very engrossing experience that is put together as sharply as one would expect from someone of Richard Linklater's caliber.

Friday, March 22, 2013

Most people who see me regularly have heard me talk about this issue, but I'm going to make some use out of my blog and put some of my thoughts into writing. Before I get into the issue at hand though, I want to give a little bit of backstory about my relationship with dancing. I hope that telling my story will make my end point clearer, so just stick with me for a while here.

I've always loved music. Deeply loved it. I was a bored kid in my earlier years because it was too hot to go outside and play, my brother was much older, and we didn't have cable tv, but the bright side of that is that it gave me time to sit in my room and listen to music. I almost never do that anymore because I'm so busy and music has become a backdrop for other activities, but I loved to sit there and do nothing else other than listen to my cassettes or CDs. As I got older, I looked forward to New Year's Eve with the family because there was always dancing to feed my need for music and I felt free to just freestyle dance. I was a terrible dancer, mind you. I had some rhythm but absolutely no technique. I just didn't care though - it always made me smile and laugh.

Then came the summer of 2006. I interned in Dallas and had probably the best summer of my life enjoying time with newly found friends in my free time, of which there was a lot. A couple of them were Mexican or Colombian and knew how to dance salsa - culturally, it's just something they grew up on. They taught us basic techniques and I remember struggling endlessly to not look like a robot and to stay on rhythm, but the music always energized me enough to make me want to keep trying. I learned through a student organization back at college more than just the basics and what drew me into salsa, aside from the music, was that there was a structure I could follow to dance correctly. Engineers aren't the most creative of people outside of our fields. I have creativity about me in specific parts of my life, but when I see advanced dancers I know that I'll never be quite at their level. Still, salsa gave me a ray of hope that I could grow my creativity and my love of music all in one!

Before long, I was actually going to salsa clubs. I hadn't ever been to a dance club I didn't hate because it seemed like clubs were places where desperate people go to try to do dubious things and it was always too noisy and too dark. Salsa clubs were almost the exact opposite - they were places where people went to be themselves, have fun, and be respectful (generally) of others. While I was always self-conscious about my novice abilities, I always felt welcome and was grateful for it. I'll never forget one friend I made who was clearly a way better dancer than me and I didn't understand why she, at her far superior experience level, ever wanted to dance with someone who fumbled around to do more than about 10 different techniques. I found out one day when we danced though - she laughed and said "you're always smiling! I love it!" That made me realize a couple of things. For one thing, I hoped I was smiling too much. For another though, it struck me that different people get different things out of dancing from different people, and that's a big part of what makes it magical

Once you learn one dance though, you just want to learn more and more - it becomes a slight addiction! From that same organization I picked up merengue, cha cha, and bachata, all much easier than salsa, granted. However, I lost my social group of fellow dancers when I moved to Seattle and was on hiatus for a couple of years. However, I came across west coast swing at an intro lesson to, ironically, re-kindle my interest in salsa where the teachers also knew west coast swing and started noodling around in it. I pretty quickly swooned for west coast swing because of the variety of contemporary music that worked with it (pretty much anything in 4:4 rhythm with a mellow enough tempo). And just last year I started on kizomba after being invited by my salsa instructor to try it out! What's interesting about that is how quickly it's catching on worldwide despite being so new.

What's so addictive about dancing? If you're not already a dancer (by that I mean someone who goes out and dance on some semi-regular basis), then it's probably not so obvious. It's a combination of a few things though. For one, it's beautiful to be in harmony with another person and with music all at the same time. I feel like whenever there is harmony in nature, there is God, and where there is God there is love - so can't we all use a little more love in life? Secondly, once you learn the ropes in your first dance style - it's much easier to do other stuff. It's like when you start working out regularly - the first couple of weeks suck, but then it's never quite so hard again. Thirdly though, and maybe most importantly, there's the sense of community. Dancing really helped me gain a lot of confidence in myself. There's no distinction among skin color or sex or economic class or age or anything like that in dancing. I've even danced with women well into their 60s and saw them light up on the dance floor like they were 20 years younger. There's few activities out there that brings people together in a positive way like dancing - all around you is smiling (possibly sweaty) people, laughter, and hugs.

Of course, as a lead it can be hard sometimes to find time to practice on your own enough to stay sharp out there and so sometimes you can get a little bit in your own head as you mess up details a lot and discouraged as I have recently. However, earlier this week, I went dancing west coast swing at Century and had an experience that reminded me of why dancing is worth it. A girl asked me to dance to a song that I didn't know and she said "oh, it's a waltz" to which I frantically replied "oh no! I don't know how to waltz!" Her more than welcome response to me was to just do whatever I wanted and make it up as I go because that's what she does. Amazingly enough, it really worked. For those 3-4 minutes, I felt like a real-life dancer. I took all that I had soaked up from dancing west coast swing and salsa and watching others and by roughly matching the beat I just did what came natural. I was on a high all night from it because it's such a rare experience to dance with someone and be on the same page the whole time where even your screw-ups and theirs come out looking superb. As I mentioned earlier with harmony, I think most dancers will remark that there are only certain people they absolutely click with when they're out there - you may have fun with lots of people, but it's a small number that you uniquely mesh with.

Why did I spend all this time explaining my interest in dancing? Because I believe the opportunity to dance is a right everyone should have. There's an antiquated law that the state of Washington is conveniently interpreting to hinder that opportunity. They've decided to shakedown Century Ballroom for an astronomical amount of back taxes they never before asked for but got negotiated down to $92,000, and while they've fundraised about $63,000 of that, they have until May 1 to come up with the rest. If you at all liked reading this post, I implore you to thank me by donating a few bucks to Century. I know there's a lot of great charities out there so maybe it seems silly to donate to a small business, but they help people right here in Seattle and create an opportunity to dance in a really positive way with their affordable classes and affordable social dancing. They've been a Seattle institution for 16 years and have earned our support - so please provide it. They're working on trying to get a bill passed to repeal this tax - it's a silly tax because it's hard to define who it's levied on so it's intrinsically unfair, but it also discourages a good activity. That's like charging a sin tax on fruits and vegetables - it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Please tell your representatives in the Washington legislature that you support dancing in Seattle and not this crazy tax. And last, but not least, get out there and dance your hearts out. Enjoy life - don't let it slip by.

Monday, December 31, 2012

At some point I'd
like to get back to writing about tech, but it has been a bit difficult because
life has simple been busy! I've been loving life though and trying to fit in
dancing and training where I can. In the meantime - look! A post:

Kunta Evolved

I watched the BET
Awards earlier this year and at the end of the show Jamie Foxx and Kerry
Washington came on stage and introduced a montage of clips from Django Unchained and he set it up as what he
wanted to be the most influential piece of Black cinema since Roots. He introduced it as "Kunta
Evolved." I have to admit that I haven't actually seen the highly
acclaimed Roots starring Lavaar Burton,
though its power as a film is undeniable. (I'm putting it on my "movies to
see" list, but I didn't want to delay this review on seeing it.) So does it live up to such hype from Foxx
himself? I think it's going to be near impossible for Tarantino to ever have an
impact on pop culture like Pulp Fiction had, but I think this has got to be as
close as Tarantino could get.

In case you don't
know what the basic premise is (though in all their video ads and trailers
they've actually done a pretty good job of explaining it), Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) is a
bounty hunter who comes across a bounty for three brothers that Django (Jamie
Foxx) has seen and is one of a few people who would be able to identify them.
Hence, he recruits Django to help him with this in exchange for a small
percentage of the bounty, his freedom, and later the opportunity to rescue his
wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). To make things more interesting, in true
Tarantino fashion this film is a homage. It's a devoted dedication to
Blaxploitation films with a nod to Spaghetti Westerns. It's a simple enough plotline
that is painted with dialogue so crazy only Tarantino would have the guts to
put it on the big screen, loads of suspense and emotion, and, of course,
cartoonishly vicious displays of violence wrapped in a revenge story. Revenge
is a common motif in Tarantino films (Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, Inglourious Basterds), and I think his take in this film is
actually a little different - but I think expounding out that would be a
spoiler so I won't. As a film, I'd probably compare it most closely to Inglourious Basterds, but with lots more
blood. And I mean a lot.

The acting in this
film is, as expected, phenomenal. I don't know what Tarantino puts in his
cast's water, but what excites me most about seeing his work is that no
performance leaves anything to be desired. I was a little disappointed that he
didn't throw any no-names in here or washed up actors - they were all actors
that you'd already expect to be talented. Kerry Washington is probably the
least familiar to audiences, and she is radiant. Though this film lacks strong
women due to the time period, I still saw the scenes with her showed inspiring
courage and immense beauty, even when dressed as a slave (to be clear: I'm not
saying she was beautiful because she was a slave, but that it was crazy that
even when she tugged on your heart strings for her deplorable state they could
never fully destroy her beauty). I don't know what to say about Christoph Waltz
that I didn't say in my review of Inglourious Basterds - he's a treat whenever he's on screen. You can't help but love
him as an actor and his character as a person. Even though he kills people for
a living, you still have to root for him. Jamie Foxx is an often underrated
actor, but given the right material he can really do something special - and I
think he does here. As far as the antagonists go, you can't help but love to
hate Sam Jackson and Leonardo DiCaprio. I'm sure its hard as a human being to
say some of the stuff they had to say in this film (especially for Samuel L
Jackson), but they were such unique villains. While I did see similarities
between DiCaprio here and Waltz in Inglourious
Basterds, I liked how the movie almost made you forget at times what a
terrible person DiCaprio is. His Southern sensibilities almost hid it away.

The set pieces and
costumes in the film were really great, not much I can say here. The costumes
really put you in the time period and the set pieces were nice gradients of
muted plains versus elegance. I was a little disappointed that the set pieces
didn't lend themselves to any exceptional cinematography. In past Tarantino
films there are a number of scenes I remember specifically because of the
images they conveyed that were burned into my brain, but I didn't really have
much of that here.

The soundtrack is
ridiculous - it's a must-buy. I'm actually listening to it right now and, per
normal, it drums up in me memories from the movie. It's got Rick Ross, John
Legend, 2Pac, Ennio Morricone and the standard bevy of quotable quotes from the
movie. I love that there are theme songs
for King and for Django - those are nice touches. Tarantino typically forms his
soundtracks before he starts shooting his films, not the other way around. For
a music-lover like me, this is not lost on me.

I know this has been
an all-out lovefest, but this is far from my favorite Tarantino film. First of
all, it's just too long. I know he's a really passionate director and he wrote
the script so he's naturally very attached to it, but he needs to get a better
editor. Two hours and forty-five minutes
is just ridiculous. The final act went on for far too long. I'd have to watch
it again to tell you exactly what I think needed to be cut, but I think
Tarantino had too many ideas he was trying to convey here. I really wish he
would've picked a couple and focused on those, and then just given us the rest
as deleted scenes later. I also thought there was also too much violence in
this film. It wasn't hyper-realistic like in a war moving, but it also wasn't
humorously ridiculous violence like in Kill
Bill. At times the violence was definitely a little disturbing. Even
when characters you're rooting for kill people, you may sometimes cringe. It
was so much so that I walked out of this film not really sure how I felt about
it. I only realized how much I liked the film as a whole hours later when I was
recalling it and the scenes that struck me and emotions that were stirred up in
me. It's just not a super easy film to re-watch again and again compare to his
other work.

So, should you run
out and see it? If you can stomach buckets of blood and being reminded of how
awful slaves were treated, go for it. It's a worthwhile ride to be on even with its flaws. While it may not be Tarantino's best work, it's easily one of the best
(maybe the best) I've seen all year. My letter rating is an A-.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Yeah yeah I know,
I've been bad. I haven't been writing here and you're all heartbroken. By now,
I'm sure you've gotten over it with minimal tears. This blog pops up in my mind
but has just fallen lower in my priority list. I'm writing this post in hopes
that it will energize me into writing posts with some regularity again!

Kindle Paperwhite Review

(Disclaimer: I do
work for Amazon but I do not work for the part of the company that produces
hardware or software for the Kindle. I'm sure in some indirect way your
purchase of a Kindle does benefit me, but I only buy into Amazon products that
I like. I'm certainly not being paid to write this review - quite the contrary,
I paid out of pocket for the full price of this device.)

I bought my first
Kindle a couple of years ago now. It was the Kindle Keyboard (i.e. the third
Kindle release) and I had gotten it because I felt like the Kindle folks had
finally hit their stride (see that review). The color was immediately attractive to me, the form
factor and weight overall was ideal for one handed reading, and the speed was
reasonable enough to where the black flashes on the screen didn't bug me. That
being said, I almost never used the keyboard, navigating the screen on the
directional pad was a chore, and I needed a $60 case in order to read in dim
lighting in an elegant way (the first party lighted leather case). Last winter
I jumped on the Kindle Touch bandwagon (see that review) for one primary reason: the infared touch screen.
The idea of not having to use that stupid d-pad was very enticing.
Additionally, there was X-ray (which sideloads Wikipedia content for
characters, places, and terms in books and tells you where in the book they're
mentioned), a greatly improved case (the old case had a serious issue with the
connection to the spine), and a page refresh that didn't require blacking out
the screen each time. Of course, the case was still $60 in order to read in dim
lighting and the smooth leather case attracted scratches like a magnet.
All-in-all, this was an evolutionary step forward that I only took because of
how much more I loved the Kindle than practically any other device I owned.

Flash forward to two
and a half weeks ago when I got my Kindle Paperwhite: there's no doubt that
this is superior in nearly every way to every single Kindle ever made and now
is the time to jump on the e-Reader bandwagon if you've been holding out. I'm very
confident that if you enjoy reading or if you're like me and enjoy reading
except when it means squinting for tiny text or lugging around heavy books, you
will not regret getting a Paperwhite. I'll start out talking about the new
features and what I like about it before I get to some of the areas for
improvement.

With each Kindle,
the team has gotten better at making the onboarding experience as pain-free as
possible. The Paperwhite was no exception. While I do slightly miss the fact
that in the past my Kindle already had my account information on it (could be
that for some unknown reason mine didn't while others did), the onscreen
tutorial as soon as you switch it on is awesome. You're ready to start using
it within a couple of minutes as long as you have connectivity (WiFi or 3G if
you got the 3G model). One key difference on the onboarding experience this
time is that they no longer make you suffer as an existing customer - getting
your content on there is much easier. They've changed the UI to be more like
the Amazon MP3 Player UI (and I think even the Kindle UI on non-Kindles) where
you have "Cloud" section anda
"Device" section with the major improvement of a drop down for type
of content (Periodical, Book, etc). So now, you just scroll through your cloud
content and tap the stuff you want to transfer over to your device. Since the
Kindle Touch, any personal documents you've transferred to your device through
Amazon is backed up in the cloud up to a reasonably high limit (books you buy
through Amazon are backed up without limit). So I had over 100 items to
transfer over, but because the Paperwhite is a bit zippier than past Kindles I
was able to tap all the items I cared about (probably 3/4 of my library) in
under 5 minutes, and over WiFi it was short work to get them all on there
(notes, bookmarks, and all). What's even better though is that you can now sync
your collections, as well! Once you've downloaded the content, you can sync
that metadata and it'll organize all your content within seconds into their old
collections. Cool, huh?

New Way of Indexing Your Content

Enough gushing about
onboarding, let's move on to the UI. I like it, I like it a lot. Instead of the
boring lists of text approach of the Kindle Touch that carried over from the
pedigree of Kindles lacking a touch interface, there's now more of a cover flow-like interface (see photo to left) that uses the covers of purchased books or the first page of personal
documents sent via "Sent to Kindle" (otherwise just some text in a
box). It fits 6 covers on a page and it totally looks more polished to have
this. You still get X-ray as in Kindles past, so nothing surprising there, and
you still tap 3/4 of the right side of the screen to go forward (or swipe right
to left), 1/4 of left side of screen to go back (or swipe left to right), and
top 1/5th of screen for menu (including the home icon). However, there are three new features that are wonderful. The first is the time left in your chapter or
book. It's actually quite accurate. If you vary the pace you read at or linger
too much on pages caught up in daydreams then maybe it's not so good for you,
but it seems to be adaptive. So if you start reading something slowly and then
speed up a bunch, it will adjust, I've noticed. I'm still not sure if it's per
book or per device, but I do know that information isn't stored in the cloud or
anything - that math is done on the device itself and if you were to wipe the
device it'd go back to defaults. The sacrifice is that you have to hit the menu
area at the top to get to the page number, but if you tap the lower left corner
it cycles between time left in chapter, time left in book, and Kindle
proprietary location. The second main change is the addition of more fonts - I
was taken aback at how cool this is. For certain books certain fonts really pop
- I'm reading The Princess Bride right
now, primarily, and using Futura makes it feel so much more like a real book to
me. As advertised, you can go one font size smaller than before, which I don't
ever use but it's just as sharp as you'd expect even at that size. Oh, and of
course the physical home button is gone. I thought I'd miss this but I
surprisingly enough do not at all. The last major change is in the upper right corner of the navigation screens - you can not only change how you sort but how you filter (collections, novels, periodicals, etc), which is a small detail but very nice to have.

Getting down to the
screen itself, there are some real revolutionary changes here. First of all,
it's capacitive touch. I thought this would never be possible and I could be
totally wrong but I haven't heard of another e-reader pulling this off. The
Kindle Touch IR touch screen was fine but took some getting used to and meant
that objects other than your hands like maybe a piece of cloth from your
blanket falling on the screen would turn pages. Now, much like your smartphone
it requires your finger specifically to turn pages (or a sausage, but if you're
reading with raw meats in your hand then you're an odd duck). Secondly, the
lighting technology is phenomenal. While it's true that you can't see the light
coming out of one side of the device like you can on the latest generation
Nook, you can see around all the edges the slightest hint of the layer of light
under the screen if you turn it at the exact right angle. Plus, at the bottom
you see the tiniest bit of fading under dark conditions. Other than that, it's
stunning. Everyone that I've shown it to has been equally impressed. Even
better: even at its lowest brightness (which you control very easily via the
top menu from any context on the device you're in), it's a good bit whiter than
the Kindle Touch was. You'll notice this in the below photos with my old case
light on versus Paperwhite max lighting and no light on either. For the first
time ever, I really at times felt like I was reading a paper back book in high
definition. In the past the e-ink has always impressed and been super easy on
my eyes, but the grayish brown background always made it feel like an e-reader,
which wasn't a big deal to me. However, it's a very nice touch that you'll
almost immediately appreciate. I like how under well-lit situations, keeping
the light somewhere in the middle just improves the contrast and feels nice on
my eyes, and turning it up to the max it doesn't even seem like it's backlit at
all, just even prettier than before. In darker situations, I can turn it down
to the lower half of the lighting spectrum and read without issue or eye
irritation versus a bright white screen. I've only done this for 20 minute
bouts because reading in the dark a ton isn't great for you, but if your lamp
just isn't that bright, the Paperwhite has got your back. One other thing you
may notice in my photos is the contrast improvement. It's subtle, but it's
there. I couldn't really tell between the Kindle Keyboard and the Kindle Touch,
but I totally can now. Don't get me wrong, it's not a life-changing
improvement, but within an hour or so of reading on my Paperwhite I could feel
in my eyes that something was just different other than the whiter background,
and on super close inspection realized it was the addition of more pixels.

Paperwhite Max Brightness vs. Kindle Touch with Lighted Case

Up Close with Kindle Paperwhite and Kindle Touch (no light added)

A recurring issue
for me in the past was the case - so how does this one stack up? This is the first
Kindle case where I'd give a five star rating. It's outstanding and a great
value at $40. I loved that they brought back the textured leather - it doesn't
scratch up and it grips so much better in my hands. The magnetic clasp is an
inspired touch. It may have been inspired by Apple, but I'll take it. It's the
perfect balance between the Kindle Keyboard strap and the Kindle Touch
free-balling look. When held in funky positions or dropped it doesn't fly open,
but it takes very little exertion to get it open. The best part for dorks out
there like me is the auto on/off thing. I thought it was just a gimmick when I
heard about it, but having used it for a couple of weeks now I'm just blown
away by how much it enhances my experience. I can literally read a little bit
while waiting on an elevator for a second because it turns on so quickly and I
love that I can shut it without being worried about hitting the physical home
button the Kindle Touch had or even the IR screen itself because I know there
is no physical button and that it'll turn off immediately. I like that the
inside of the front cover has a nice texture to it that looks really polished
and that the side, top, and bottom are a little rubbery to absorb shock better.
Just as before, the Paperwhite fits so snug that you'll never have to worry
about it falling out of the case or getting damaged because of how solid the
shell is.

So as I alluded to
earlier, I do have a couple of minor gripes. I'm bummed that they did away with
the swipe up and swipe down gestures. Formerly, these gestures let you skip
chapters and I loved it. I'm probably going to write in to the Kindle folks and
beg them to bring back this feature. I don't know why it went away. Speaking of
cut features,why can't I toggle WiFi
on/off from the top menu? I have to go to settings now to switch airplane mode
on/off. That makes it harder to conserve battery life because of the added work
so I'll probably sync less often. One other lost feature: text-to-speech. They
cut the speakers and headphone jack out very quietly (coincidentally), so
you'll have to opt for the cheap Kindle model if you're visually impaired,
which probably makes more sense. I'm not a fan of the black color. My favorite
Kindle color is still the graphite from the Kindle Keyboard. It's nice that the
back is more rubbery than the smooth Kindle Touch back, but the bezel being
black means that it retains your hand grease more easily (the screen itself
doesn't seem to, mainly just the bezel). The fact that the home screen has a
bottom row dedicated to recommendations and hot titles is kind of cool, but I
wish it was opt-out. I'd prefer to use the screen real estate for more
collections. Plus, it doesn’t even exclude books I've already bought, which is
disappointing; hopefully that'll get fixed later. Speaking of ads, the
ad-supported device only saves you $20 and requires a swipe-to-unlock (because
of the new case, I'm guessing). I think going ad-supported is silly now because
of this - it was a lot more sensible in past Kindles.One last gripe: the Paperwhite still isn't
lighter. I'm guessing they compromised here in favor of the battery life. With
the case on, it actually does feel a little easier to hold in one hand than the
Kindle Touch, but still not quite as nice as the Kindle Keyboard.

A couple of last
notes: the jury is still out for me on battery life. It's doing pretty well
overall, but after decent usage for a week and some change the battery is at
maybe 70%. So I don't think it'll hold up to the two months I was promised
(even with WiFi off), but I think it'll easily meet at least the month that my
old Kindle had even with the lighted screen, and I'm perfectly satisfied with
that. It's slightly zippier overall than the Kindle Touch. Page turns are a
little faster and the black screen flashes are so quick that you really barely
even notice them. Web browsing is a little better, too, but still nothing to
write home about.

Ok, I think I've
said enough here - as a whole, I hope I've given you a pretty good idea of what
the Kindle Paperwhite is like. If you own a Kindle 1 or 2, you need to upgrade
to this. Even if you have the Kindle Keyboard and Kindle Touch, I'd say this is
a nice upgrade but probably more valuable for the Kindle Keyboard users.
Personally, I don't at all regret my upgrade from the Kindle Touch. I really
feel like it was much more sensible than my upgrade from the Kindle Keyboard.
Book lovers unite - you finally have a device truly worthy of your affection.

Sunday, May 06, 2012

I'm a little bummed that I haven't had time to blog in a while, but I decide to make some time tonight to at least put up a quick review about a little movie that came out last week called The Avengers.

In case you've lived in a cave for a while, Marvel had this almost absurd plan that they were going to make individual films about each of the superheroes that are part of the team in the Marvel Universe known as Avengers who assemble in the comic book world when there's a really big threat. They were created in response to DC's Justice League and had a rotating cast of heroes/heroines, but the movie sticks with the most popular ones. The only members to not get their own films were Black Widow and Hawkeye, though they received cameos in Iron Man and Thor, respectively. The premise of this film is that Thor's brother, Loki, is trying to enslave humanity with the help of an alien army that enters the planet via a portal created by an extremely powerful cube called the Tesseract. Naturally, the Avengers reluctantly assemble to stop the threat.

I decided to see the movie at midnight on opening night, which was actually a lot more comfortable than I imagined it'd be, and I was shocked that this movie wasn't awful. Joss Whedon being on board made it seem pretty likely that it'd be a great film, but to take so many larger-than-life characters that bring a lot of backstory baggage from their own movies and put them together just seemed exceedingly difficult. Especially considering that these were the same actors (except for Mark Ruffalo replacing Edward Norton as Bruce Banner) from each superhero's own film - there was no guarantee that they'd work well together. This movie worked on many levels though, and I think the main reason is the fact that this movie didn't take itself too seriously. In modern superhero films, these's a pretty clear dichotomy between films that really strive to exist in a grounded, real world (like The Dark Knight or Chronicle) and those that fully embrace the comic world without going overboard (like X-Men or Spider-Man). The Avengers falls in the latter category, and I think we should all be glad for that because it manages to appeal to the comic book fans with lots of subtle, inside jokes while still being accessible to mainstream audiences and building a storyline that everyone can get on board with. It doesn't try to adhere too strictly to the comics aside from the characters themselves, but rather it's a very creative take on what happens when you throw all these different elements together.

If you're expecting a groundbreaking film here, you're going to be disappointed. At its core, it follows a very standard formula. I don't see anything wrong with that though - it executes on this formula very well with the added benefit that there's no need for a prolonged backstory on the characters. It doesn't bother re-hashing what's happened in previous movies except very briefly giving you just enough so that you can still follow along. Sure, it slightly penalizes the people who haven't see the previous four films, but not nearly enough to keep you from seeing this one. I didn't see Thor or Captain America: The First Avenger and yet I didn't feel lost at all. In effect, it was refreshing that the movie could move at such a brisk pace keeping the audience really engaged with loads of humor and fight scenarios that geeks normally have to put a lot of brain power into daydreaming about. The humor really is pretty impressive - subtle, dry, and timed very well.

The acting is as solid as you'd expect. Nick Fury is Sam Jackson, so it makes sense that he'd do the character justice and obviously plays a much bigger role in this film than any of the previous ones. I have to admit that I was a little disappointed with Scarlett Johansson - I think the screenplay didn't really give us a clear picture of Black Widow. There were bits and pieces, and it was probably somewhat intentional that she be a bit of a mystique, but I don't think Johansson helped - the character just seemed a bit flat. She's still gorgeous though. The rest of the cast knocks it out of the park, especially Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey, Jr (for the third Tony Stark movie in a row - he's on fire). I didn't think I'd be happy with re-casting Edward Norton because I love him as an actor, but when you see Ruffalo it's clear that he should've been Bruce Banner all along.

The action sequences are grand and well done - with very minor exceptions that I won't get into so as to not spoil the film at all. The production quality is as top notch as you'd expect, and I was especially impressed by the sound editing. Maybe it was just the theater I was at, but the seats would literally rumble at the appropriate times and more so than any movie I've seen in a while I thought it was quite an immersive experience, despite being in a packed auditorium where every single geeky thing got lots of applause and/or laughter.

My score for this movie would probably be an A-. I loved it, would highly recommend, and would definitely see it again (it survives the test of me still reminiscing about the movie 3 days later), but there's nothing especially extraordinary about it. It's just a super fun action film that's well worth the ride if you're willing to tolerate being in an entirely geek driven universe and can suspend disbelief on a few things (e.g. there were definitely some anachronisms with Captain America).

P.S. There are not one but two post-credits bonus scenes. So don't let the janitor kick you out - stay in your seat until you see the second bonus scene. I only saw one, myself, because I didn't know there were two.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Yeah, it's been a while. I'm not even going to try to make any excuses, life has just been busy. However, I did get a new phone! So I thought I'd write a little something about that experience.
Anyone who's known me for the past couple of years knows that I've been a pretty unapologetic fan of webOS and the Palm Pre. My cell phone history is shorter than I'm sure most people my age - I went from a non-color Sanyo clamshell, to a color Smasung clamshell, to a slightly better LG clamshell, to a Palm Treo 650 (2007), to a Palm Pre (2009), and finally a Samsung Galaxy S2. For someone who loves technology so much, you'd think I'd be a little more eager with my gadgets, but I'm nothing if not a passionate person, and I act on that passion. So unless you can get me really passionate about your next big thing, I'm too pragmatic to jump ship. Once I got the Pre, I finally felt like I had a phone that matched my lifestyle. It multitasked (much like I do), it had a qwerty keyboard (that I could get up to 40 WPM on), and the UI was simple and elegant. Back then, Android was pretty ugly, Blackberry was starting to decline, and the iPhone was still an unstoppable juggernaut. The tide has really turned now. Palm has gone under, Blackberry has one foot in the grave, the iPhone is as commonplace as a clamshell phone was about 5 years ago, and Android is finally a major player in the race (sorry Microsoft, Windows Phones still haven't gotten much traction despite an excellent redesign). I'd actually posit something pretty, controversial: Android has overtaken the iPhone.

Let's pull back a bit though so I can talk a little bit about my decision to leave the Pre and why I chose the Galaxy S2. The funniest thing turned me from a webOS fan to a deserter: HP replaced Google Maps with Bing Maps. It seems pretty minor, right? I had endured Palm being bought out, I endured the lack of developer support, I endured the fact that using the headphone jack would totally hork the phone's audio, I endured having to trade in my phone about 4 times due to hardware issues, and I had endured practically total abandonment from HP, but I was annoyed beyond repair that they'd take an app that I actually liked overall and forced me to use an app that just didn't work as well and I had no choice in the matter. Soon after that, I noticed that my battery life was getting much worse as were speeds in general on my device. I stopped overclocking to deal with battery life, but now it was too slow. I hated to say it, but I was going to have to give up on phones with physical keyboards. Much like a Joss Whedon television show, they've been going extinct. Cut down in their prime (ok, maybe not, but I still liked them).

I walked into my friendly neighborhood Sprint store (the one on Union seriously is pretty friendly) in November to browse what they had and the only phones that piqued my interest were the Motorola Photon 4G, the iPhone, and the Samsung Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch (clearly they were high when they decided on that name). Pretty much all the other phones sucked. There was one Android candybar phone with a keyboard that was ok, but not thrilling. The iPhone was at the bottom of my list for a couple of simple reasons: I really dislike the UI and the keyboard. The Android UI may not have been intuitive at first when I played with it, but I liked what I saw online of Ice Cream Sandwich and I was blown away by the keyboard for the Photon 4G and the Galaxy S2. Swype is the coolest thing since sliced bread. I was aware of it before and thought it was gimmicky, but when I played with it in the store it worked immediately for me - I was shocked how intuitive it was. I could type on par with a physical keyboard, and the phones are big enough that turning it to landscape mode gives you a usable keyboard with two thumbs. I gave an edge to the Galaxy S2 because it was a little thinner and the screen seemed a little prettier than the Photon 4G, and comparing speeds to the iPhone I was sure that the Galaxy S2 was on par. I was hoping to wait a bit longer before jumping ship, but the Pre speeds were really getting to me and I lost my Zune HD at the end of December so I had no mp3 player. In the end, I decided on the Galaxy S2 3 weeks ago because Motorola announced that the Photon 4G would not see Ice Cream Sandwich but leaked ROMs confirmed that Samsung was working on it for the Galaxy S2.

So how was the switch from webOS to Android? I have to admit, a little rocky. I was happy as soon as I had the Galaxy S2 in my hot little hands because the screen was so impressive, the phone was running at speeds I didn't realize were possible on phones, and it was so thin that I could keep it in my pocket rather than getting a hip holster. The webOS UI took me maybe 30 minutes to figure out everything for - Android took me a few days to really sort out. The learning curve is pretty steep. As much as I love the Swype keyboard, you do have to learn some of the tricks to be really proficient at it. The stock launcher (even with TouchWiz) is meh - you get a lot more usability out of something like GO Launcher EX. That was only the tip of the iceberg of tips and tricks to using Android. Whereas webOS just worked right out of the box, Android Gingerbread only worked at a very nominal experience. The synergy that I came to love on webOS wasn't available on Android - I had to hand manage merging duplicate contacts. App backup was all on me to deal with, as well. Most of all, it took me a few days to get used to not multi-tasking. What's funny is that I can operate faster because of the fact that I can context switch even faster on this hardware versus the Pre hardware, especially by holding the home button to get to recently used apps. What I learned through it all was one key thing: Android is really only for people who are tinkerers or technologists. If you want something that just works, you really don't want Android. I've come to really enjoy it and it provides an awesomely customizable experience, but I'm shocked at how many normal people are using it. I'm sure a lot of them aren't happy with it either and that's where the iPhone succeeds.

People I know who have gone from Android to the iPhone have really hated it and it's because the experience is so curated. There's no swype, there's no JuiceDefender (this thing seriously doubles my battery life - it's ridiculous), no Dolphin Browser HD, no widgets, no lock screen customizations, and the list goes on. Meanwhile, Android has pretty much everything on the iPhone, and then some - the upcoming version even has more attractive multi-tasking, face recognition unlock, NFC support, and a few other fun things that you previously needed apps for (like panoramic pictures and lock screen customization). I should adjust my statement earlier: Android has overtaken the iPhone in technology. I think the iPhone rightfully should have more market share because it's such a simpler experience. You don't have a fragmented platform where certain things only work on certain phones - there's a few iPhones and it's pretty clear which features are new and not available for older models. It's kind of interesting that we're now pretty much in a two party system when it comes to phones and I think both platforms are great competition for one another - 5 years ago I would've said that cell phones really haven't been going anywhere but now I can say that I think we're really going to continue to see a lot of innovation.

Personally, I'm glad to be on the Android bandwagon. I've been able to use it for podcasts and music effectively (unlike the Pre), the browser is surprisingly usable, the games are surprisingly engaging, and there's so many fun productivity apps (like depositing checks and HeyTell and many more). I hope to see Samsung (who I think has really been doing the best job of producing high quality phones across all carriers) and Google continue to deliver high quality products continue to raise the bar set by Apple.